It's ridiculous that this is even an issue in the modern age. Imagine if there where different laws that and rules depending on your political preference. That would be fun, wouldn't it? No? Well sexual preference should be no different.
I don't agree with a lot of peoples choices and opinions but imagine how ludicrous it would be if I tried to claim that my choices and opinions where the only ones that mattered and everybody should be legally inclined to follow them.
Well in that case I require the government to start taxing religious groups (so called churches) since I find it immoral that they are not paying their share.
The better equivalent would be laws discouraging or banning left-handedness, as it's something innate and harmless. But all in all, you're right: it would be ludicrous, and it is ridiculous that we have to have these conversations in the modern world.
I don't disagree with your comment. I too think it is absurd that we even have to discuss human rights like this but I just wanted to point out I find it odd when people say things like "In our modern age" or "This is the 21st century! How can X still be happening?"
The truth is most of the world is not socially or culturally advancing at anywhere near the rates of change we are seeing in technology and collective human knowledge. Pockets of people in affluent educated areas are moving in the general direction we want to see thanks to an increasingly integrated and connected society, but cultural traditions and norms fight back hard and resist change.
The fact that we have to even consider whether human rights apply to gays or anyone else illustrates the point that we may be modern, in the sense that we are more advanced technically than our ancient ancestors but I don't think we are truly civilized yet.
I agree they are human rights. Free choice to decide who you want to love has been a battle throughout history, especially in the US. It is truly pathetically sad it is even debated in modern America.
You are such a f**king retard. I see you repeat that stupid comment every time gay marriage is brought up. Yes gay marriage isn't illegale but that doesn't make it legal either. If when gay people can get Married And get the same benefits and writes that straight people get that's when it will be not unconstitutional.You are not allowed to give rights to one group of people and deny it to another group.Marriage is not just a Religious institution is also a legal binding contract That brings along with it some benefits that gay people aren't allowed to have.
But you need the state's OK when it comes to marital status involving taxes or the rights to make medical or legal decisions involving your spouse, so having a marriage that is not recognized by the state is pretty much useless. Any two people can live together, sure, but we are talking about rights here.
There are only two sexes; I find it deeply immoral that loving someone from one or the other sex could be called a sin or 'immoral' by some religious people. It's stone age thinking. Be glad when anyone finds love, there's little enough of it anywhere.
There are some things that are logically and universally considered immoral without regard for or recourse to religion. Homosexuality is not one of them. You have to look to your religion to explain why homosexuality is bad; therefore, it should in no way be discouraged or discriminated against by secular governments.
I remember that argument when it was against interracial couples.. The focus changes - but the arguments don't.
And typically "standard human rights" also serve when it comes to benefits. Or do the handicapped have to pay extra to get these benefits, or minorities? Do they have to pay extra to get in to the hospital room to see their dying loved one (because they aren't a "family member")?
The "benefits" of getting married are not all this is about either. "standard human rights" also includes the right to work without harassment, to go to school and have teachers stand up to bullies with you, to be able love the soul you choose to, regardless of the external package, and not live in fear that when you're found out you will be: 1) beaten, 2) fired, 3) discharged from the military, 4) or simply harassed with no recourse against those who would hurt you or those you love.
And yes - I know some of things are changing and that is good. But these are the reasons why gay rights have to be separated from "standard human rights".
Equal protection under the law which also covers benefits. Them having to pay for same benefits violates that. Please stop trying to spread you bigoted lies.
so i need to get a lawyer and spend my time and money to get something that someone else gets for free with little or no effort? yea that sounds like equality under the law...
Because those "standard human rights" don't give gays protection, as they would to women, the handicapped, and color minorities, etc.. All those other groups are allowed to marry, adopt children, have joint tax returns, have rights of survivorship when one spouse dies... all sort of things that gays aren't allowed to have. This is why it must be separate, if "standard human rights" would also cover gays - then it wouldn't be such an issue.
mtownFeb 12, 2012Buried
It's ridiculous that this is even an issue in the modern age. Imagine if there where different laws that and rules depending on your political preference. That would be fun, wouldn't it? No? Well sexual preference should be no different.
I don't agree with a lot of peoples choices and opinions but imagine how ludicrous it would be if I tried to claim that my choices and opinions where the only ones that mattered and everybody should be legally inclined to follow them.
ninhFeb 12, 2012Buried
Well in that case I require the government to start taxing religious groups (so called churches) since I find it immoral that they are not paying their share.
salbatrossFeb 12, 2012Buried
The better equivalent would be laws discouraging or banning left-handedness, as it's something innate and harmless. But all in all, you're right: it would be ludicrous, and it is ridiculous that we have to have these conversations in the modern world.
diefreeFeb 12, 2012Buried
It's called equal protection under the law. You've been shown this fact numerous times Norman yet you continue to lie.
downshiftdxFeb 12, 2012Buried
I don't disagree with your comment. I too think it is absurd that we even have to discuss human rights like this but I just wanted to point out I find it odd when people say things like "In our modern age" or "This is the 21st century! How can X still be happening?"
The truth is most of the world is not socially or culturally advancing at anywhere near the rates of change we are seeing in technology and collective human knowledge. Pockets of people in affluent educated areas are moving in the general direction we want to see thanks to an increasingly integrated and connected society, but cultural traditions and norms fight back hard and resist change.
The fact that we have to even consider whether human rights apply to gays or anyone else illustrates the point that we may be modern, in the sense that we are more advanced technically than our ancient ancestors but I don't think we are truly civilized yet.
JLF2035Feb 12, 2012Buried
I find it really disturbing, that in a country that prides itself on freedom, that this is even an issue.
assassyn360Feb 12, 2012Buried
I agree they are human rights. Free choice to decide who you want to love has been a battle throughout history, especially in the US. It is truly pathetically sad it is even debated in modern America.
JLF2035Feb 12, 2012Buried
And yet they won't get the same rights and benefits that regular married couples get, because the government doesn't recognize it.
As usual you sound like an ignorant moron.
gianpoFeb 12, 2012Buried
You are such a f**king retard. I see you repeat that stupid comment every time gay marriage is brought up. Yes gay marriage isn't illegale but that doesn't make it legal either. If when gay people can get Married And get the same benefits and writes that straight people get that's when it will be not unconstitutional.You are not allowed to give rights to one group of people and deny it to another group.Marriage is not just a Religious institution is also a legal binding contract That brings along with it some benefits that gay people aren't allowed to have.
mtownFeb 12, 2012Buried
But you need the state's OK when it comes to marital status involving taxes or the rights to make medical or legal decisions involving your spouse, so having a marriage that is not recognized by the state is pretty much useless. Any two people can live together, sure, but we are talking about rights here.
randomirish2Feb 12, 2012Buried
There are only two sexes; I find it deeply immoral that loving someone from one or the other sex could be called a sin or 'immoral' by some religious people. It's stone age thinking. Be glad when anyone finds love, there's little enough of it anywhere.
JLF2035Feb 12, 2012Buried
Well, that's what it's called when they don't receive the same rights as everyone else.
salbatrossFeb 12, 2012Buried
There are some things that are logically and universally considered immoral without regard for or recourse to religion. Homosexuality is not one of them. You have to look to your religion to explain why homosexuality is bad; therefore, it should in no way be discouraged or discriminated against by secular governments.
JLF2035Feb 12, 2012Buried
LOL. whatever you say dude.
gotapointFeb 12, 2012Buried
I remember that argument when it was against interracial couples.. The focus changes - but the arguments don't.
And typically "standard human rights" also serve when it comes to benefits. Or do the handicapped have to pay extra to get these benefits, or minorities? Do they have to pay extra to get in to the hospital room to see their dying loved one (because they aren't a "family member")?
The "benefits" of getting married are not all this is about either. "standard human rights" also includes the right to work without harassment, to go to school and have teachers stand up to bullies with you, to be able love the soul you choose to, regardless of the external package, and not live in fear that when you're found out you will be: 1) beaten, 2) fired, 3) discharged from the military, 4) or simply harassed with no recourse against those who would hurt you or those you love.
And yes - I know some of things are changing and that is good. But these are the reasons why gay rights have to be separated from "standard human rights".
mortventFeb 12, 2012Buried
whose morals?
Morals are not absolutes, they are individual things.
mortventFeb 12, 2012Buried
Poor norman,
Just because you believe certain benefits are not right, the fact one group is excluded isn't a problem
But back to rights, a gay couple has none of the family rights of a hetero couple under the law when it comes to patient rights. Or many other issues.
It's not a separate but equal rights, it's separate and unequal.
diefreeFeb 12, 2012Buried
Equal protection under the law which also covers benefits. Them having to pay for same benefits violates that. Please stop trying to spread you bigoted lies.
anticircleFeb 12, 2012Buried
so i need to get a lawyer and spend my time and money to get something that someone else gets for free with little or no effort? yea that sounds like equality under the law...
gotapointFeb 12, 2012Buried
Because those "standard human rights" don't give gays protection, as they would to women, the handicapped, and color minorities, etc.. All those other groups are allowed to marry, adopt children, have joint tax returns, have rights of survivorship when one spouse dies... all sort of things that gays aren't allowed to have. This is why it must be separate, if "standard human rights" would also cover gays - then it wouldn't be such an issue.